Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began
studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the
rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?" In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as
a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan
called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands.

Originally posted by Annee
Joseph Smith died in 1844. The policy on blacks holding Priesthood was put in place in 1852 after his death. Blacks were still members of the
church.

Was 2 Nephi 5:21-23 inserted in the Book of Mormon in 1852, was well?

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts
against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be
enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it
was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for
beasts of prey."

Sounds like Smith was pretty racist when he wrote the BoM, no?

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of how Warren Jeffs went against the teachings of Smith and Brigham Young on the matter of polygamy. As
you are supportive of Smith's stance in 1844 regarding slavery, what is your basis for saying he was wrong on the matter of polygamy, particularly as
he claimed that the latter was a direct commandment of God? Not a political statement or policy, as slavery was, but an inviolable directive of God.
Jeffs simply agreed with them, saying that, in 1890, the "Prophet" couldn't issue a manifesto stating that it was no longer applicable, in order to
stave off the US government's seizure of church assets and denial of statehood for Utah.

Secret rituals my backside, I was baptised for the dead in absentia, it was no secret, no bloody Ox's about and I got to choose who I wanted.

So I baptised Benny Hill..

And no I'm not joking...

Look LDS wasn't for me, I'm not even sure why any of them thought it was for me, but I have my tales and I had an entertaining time with them.
I joke they are bat# crazy, but the most bat# were the other recent devotee's, not the Elders. (Ok so one Pastor called me out as the Devils concubine
one Sunday, but he was just some old git from up the road having an affair behind his wifes back with some maniac in the congregation) The ones I knew
could have a chuckle at the fact people might think it was all weird, they were very open though about virtually everything.

Heck I might even be still with them if they hadn't tried to get me to marry a lad that looked like he'd been near beaten to death with the ugly
stick...Ok well maybe not. Still, they were ok, they even admitted they were guarenteed jobs in the FBI and CIA when they'd finished their missions.
So not so much secrecy after all.

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of how Warren Jeffs went against the teachings of Smith and Brigham Young on the matter of polygamy.

Fundamental Mormons (Warren Jeffs) are an unauthorized off shoot of the Official LDS church. I would not say he goes against the teachings of Joseph
Smith. He does take teachings to the extreme - - interpreting them to his own beliefs/teachings.

Although there were cases of young girls forced into marriage in early LDS history - - it was not the norm. And not all marriages were consummated.
Some were for protection of the woman. Some were only spiritual marriages.

The reason for polygamy depends on who you read. I'm only presenting ONE. Some say it was a practical solution to take care of widows and children
because so many Mormon men were killed. The church would assign men to women in need. The women could reject - but the man could not. Each woman
was suppose to be provided her own home.

Dressing modestly is part of the belief - - but official LDS do not adhere to a strict dress code of women not wearing pants and having to make their
own clothes. Nor are they required not to cut their hair.

Mormons were forced to agree to give up polygamy (by a US Christian dominated government) in order to get statehood (also Mormon women had to give up
the right to vote).

Yes it was declared illegal. But the doctrines themselves were not changed - - as far as I know.

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of how Warren Jeffs went against the teachings of Smith and Brigham Young on the matter of polygamy.

Fundamental Mormons (Warren Jeffs) are an unauthorized off shoot of the Official LDS church. I would not say he goes against the teachings of Joseph
Smith. He does take teachings to the extreme - - interpreting them to his own beliefs/teachings.

Thank you for the response. Your reply works into something that I've been mulling over, in regards to Christianity.

The Mormon fundamentalists would completely disagree with your statement that they are the "offshoot" -- they'd say that the LDS church is the
offshoot, and that they're the true church, because they hold to the ideals that were originally taught by Smith and Young. No, they can't claim
the name, but, just as Smith said that the Christian churches fell into a state of apostasy when John the Apostle died, they can say that the LDS main
church fell into apostasy when that manifest was issued in 1890.

In my case, I'm sorting through what, if any, Christian church could be viewed as the "true" church. The most obvious answer is the Roman Catholic
church, given that they can trace themselves back to the Apostles, but so can most other denominations, with the question being whether the
Reformation, for example, represented a return to "true" Christianity or an invention of a new Christianity on Luther, Henry and Zwingli's parts.
If the latter, which I lean toward, can't we also say that, over the centuries, the Roman Catholic church has also invented a new Christianity?

I'm still working through it, but at this point I've resolved it to either the whole of the Christian community is the true church, distilled to the
common parts, or that there is no true church any longer, and probably hasn't been since Augustine.

The Mormon fundamentalists would completely disagree with your statement that they are the "offshoot" -- they'd say that the LDS church is the
offshoot, and that they're the true church, because they hold to the ideals that were originally taught by Smith and Young.

I agree they would say they are the true church. But I don't agree they hold to the ideals originally taught by Smith. I do not really support
Young. (I do believe Joseph Smith was a medium and was contacted. Who/what contacted him is debatable). I do not believe Young had this connection
or insight. But I suppose you could say for the most part he was a strong and wise leader.

Differences. For one thing women in the official church have always been encouraged to be independent. Some of the first frontier doctors were
Mormon women the church sent back east to medical school and paid for. Official Mormons believe being out in society is important. "Witness" by
your actions and behavior.

No, they can't claim the name, but, just as Smith said that the Christian churches fell into a state of apostasy when John the Apostle died,
they can say that the LDS main church fell into apostasy when that manifest was issued in 1890.

Yes they can say that. Depends where you stand on your perspective.

In my case, I'm sorting through what, if any, Christian church could be viewed as the "true" church. The most obvious answer is the Roman
Catholic church, given that they can trace themselves back to the Apostles, but so can most other denominations, with the question being whether the
Reformation, for example, represented a return to "true" Christianity or an invention of a new Christianity on Luther, Henry and Zwingli's parts.
If the latter, which I lean toward, can't we also say that, over the centuries, the Roman Catholic church has also invented a new Christianity?

I'm still working through it, but at this point I've resolved it to either the whole of the Christian community is the true church, distilled to the
common parts, or that there is no true church any longer, and probably hasn't been since Augustine.

I will say its a very interesting and complex subject.

A problem I see is - - I don't think in past history you can separate Religion from Politics. Religion is about control. Basically who ever the
ruling force is - - that is the "true" religion. At least in the mind of the majority.

The FLDS is a truly scary cult, an off shoot from the "Mormon Church". How this is even legally tolerated is beyond me...the cowardly men and their
abuses, perversions, and child raping...it is enough to break even the hardest of hearts

edit on 25-6-2013 by AutOmatIc because: ...there is no hell, and no god has ever shown his/her face...

I agree my daughter converted and I am so pissed cause I couldn't give her away. The greatest gift a father could have is a daughter and they ruined
in part one piece I was looking forward to. Any other religion wouldn't have done this ANY OTHER!!

The FLDS is a truly scary cult, an off shoot from the "Mormon Church". How this is even legally tolerated is beyond me...the cowardly men and their
abuses, perversions, and child raping...it is enough to break even the hardest of hearts

I agree.

And I don't think the FLDS is a legitimate recognized church.

However, I have nothing against polygamy by choice. It was part of the religion and under Freedom of Religion should not have been banned by the
government.

I agree my daughter converted and I am so pissed cause I couldn't give her away. The greatest gift a father could have is a daughter and they ruined
in part one piece I was looking forward to. Any other religion wouldn't have done this ANY OTHER!!

According to her husband it was not her choice and we did have a reception that allowed for daddy daughter dance. And in hind sight she didn't need
to convert for them to marry either but none of that was explained to her or her family. Love is a mysterious and unexplainable human response

According to her husband it was not her choice and we did have a reception that allowed for daddy daughter dance. And in hind sight she didn't need to
convert for them to marry either but none of that was explained to her or her family. Love is a mysterious and unexplainable human response

I was sealed in the temple.

If she's old enough to get married, she's old enough to ask questions.

Unless she was forced - - it was her decision.

No legitimate Mormon is required or forced to be married in the Temple. Or ever go to the Temple. It is their choice.

It was her decision based on poor information. I'm not saying she isn't in love. She was not told the complete truth and regardless of your
perspective on my situation there isn't a religion, fraternity, group or sect that does not have those members who are only partly committed, less
desirable, or halfheartedly complying with ALL the rules or in this case the covenants.

It was her decision based on poor information. I'm not saying she isn't in love. She was not told the complete truth and regardless of your
perspective on my situation there isn't a religion, fraternity, group or sect that does not have those members who are only partly committed, less
desirable, or halfheartedly complying with ALL the rules or in this case the covenants.

I was only in it for 5 years.

We are talking about the Legitimate LDS, right? Not the FLDS.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're going to believe what you want.

BTW - - I defend their Temple Rules. They have that right. My daughters still complain they couldn't go to my sealing.

Humm, first of all the word God was translated from the word Elohim, which is a plural word btw. This is why in the bible the translation of Genesis
reads.

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
...

Mormons do not worship a different God than other Christians worship. Also, the belief is that Mormons should try their best to become exalted men
and women themselves. As in following the examples of Jesus Christ.

As for whether Mormons believe that men existed before Elohim created men? No, Mormons believe that we existed as spirits, since our spirits are but
sparks from Elohim(God) himself.

Not really. just because someone makes a graphic image and claims Jesus' story is the same as Horus doesn't make it so.

Isis, the mother of Horus wasn't impregnated as a virgin. She was according to Egyptian texts married to another god. Her husband, Osiris, was
dismembered. isis was able to use "her powers" and put together most of Osiris except his "phallus" (male organ). Isis fashioned a golden phallus
and was then impregnated. If she needed the golden phallus to be impregnated by Horus then it wasn't a "virgin birth".

Horus was the Sun god and the god of war. Jesus wasn't going around with a sword hacking people left and right in wars, but Horus was. Not to
mention that there are many variations of the story of Horus. BTW, just as a side note and a fun fact, the name "the book of the dead" was given to
these "books" because they were all found with mummies.

Then there is the fact that there are Roman records that do prove Jesus Christ did exist, that he was tortured and crucified under order of Pontius
Pilate, and Christianity was named after him. Despite mythicists claiming there is no evidence, all they are doing is denying the evidence that has
been found.

In Egyptian mythology there was no "Anup the baptizer". This was a concoction made by Gerald Massey in the 19th century. Anup is the Indian name for
Anubis. Anubis was another god associated with mummification and the afterlife.

Also, Horus did not heal the sick. This story is another concoction from what the Egyptian texts actually say. Horus was poisoned and killed by
Seth, and Isis requests the god Thoth that her son Horus be brought to life. The ancient Egyptians used the "spell" that brought Horus to life to
"try to cure people". This spell is written in the monument Metternich Stella of the 4th century B.C. The belief was that the spirit of Horus would
dwell within the sick.

That is a far cry from Jesus performing miracles and curing people.

As for Asar translating to Lazarus? Osiris is a Greek transliteration of Asar, which is an Egyptian name. It was the god Thoth who raised
Asar/Osiris, the husband of Isis. Asar does not translate to "Lazarus" or to it's Hebrew word/meaning Eleazar.

As for the claim that Horus was crucified? Show me proof from an ancient Egyptian text that says this. All that mythicists use is an image of Horus
with arms spread out and this to them is proof of a crucifixion, which is not true.

The claim that he had twelve disciples once again comes from Gerald Massey, but there are no ancient Egyptian texts that say he had twelve followers.
There are myths of Horus that mention of four sons, or six demi-gods who followed him. But there is no actual proof that he had twelve disciples.
Massey uses a mural which has the inscription "the twelve who reap the harvest", but there is no mention of Horus in that mural.

So no, Jesus' story wasn't plagiarized from Horus' story.

edit on 23-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.